Should Moneypenny and Q Have Returned?

124

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Quite the opposite, I think they had even less screentime. Except for Q.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    royale65 wrote: »
    I really enjoy the current incumbent of the MI6 team. Apart from London climax, I thought the team were relatively spare in terms of their screen time.

    I'm happy with Fiennes. Q I like too, he and Bond have some good banter. And even Tanner – I felt he and Bond were rather pally cruising down the Thames together.

    My only complaint is Moneypenny. I though she improved on her SF appearance, but there is still some work to do. “He's seen us! REVERSE!!!”

    If anything, I like to Tanner continuing indefinitely, if only for @TheWizardOfIce's similes on how dull Tanner can be. “about as dull as popping down B&Q for some grouting” is my personal highlight.

    I'm a like nothing more than pissing people off myself @Royale65 but even I would baulk at letting the invisible man ruin another Bond film with his lurking in the background just to annoy someone on the internet.

    But of course that's the most offensive thing about Rory - he's not actually that offensive. Jinx at least I can loathe with a passion but Rory is just the international baseline of dead average. Kind of like the prime meridian GMT of mediocrity.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I was glad they brought them back, but was also disappointed by their overuse in Skyfall. We've JUST brought these characters back, and we're already taking them out of their element? Let's establish what their actual jobs are before throwing a wrench in things. Oh well.

    Overuse in SKYFALL!?!? I believe that has been trumped.

    Bleh! I meant Spectre!
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    Posts: 306
    LOL! Q is hilarious in SPECTRE! :))

    Both Q and Monneypenny are awesome! :D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    I enjoyed every second of Q in SPECTRE. MP not as much, but she wasn't given as many funny lines. I am one of those few who love NH in the role. Everyone here seems to slate her...
  • Posts: 5,767
    I enjoyed every second of Q in SPECTRE. MP not as much, but she wasn't given as many funny lines. I am one of those few who love NH in the role. Everyone here seems to slate her...
    I too enjoyed every second of Q in SP, I might even overlook the strangely handled ring thing.
    I like NH, and I like her as MP. But I don´t like that especially MP in her current incarnation is no pole for Bond and the audience. As I said before, she´s more like Goodnight from the TMWTGG film. I don´t insist on the classic Maxwell MP, but I would insist on such a kind of polarity. Otherwise MP is much too replaceable.

  • Posts: 11,425
    It's just occurred to me that Harris seems slightly embarrassed to be MP. i think she's slightly miscast.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's just occurred to me that Harris seems slightly embarrassed to be MP. i think she's slightly miscast.
    I personally think she's miscast too, but why do you think she's embarrassed to be MP? She's been used in a lot of the advertising and marketing and seems to be quite ok with it. Do you see something in the performance?
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's just occurred to me that Harris seems slightly embarrassed to be MP. i think she's slightly miscast.
    I personally think she's miscast too, but why do you think she's embarrassed to be MP? She's been used in a lot of the advertising and marketing and seems to be quite ok with it. Do you see something in the performance?

    She seems a bit uncomfortable with it. May be she's not a very good actress. I'm not sure. She just seems awkward. I think it's cos she went to Cambridge - they tend to be a bit stiff.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's just occurred to me that Harris seems slightly embarrassed to be MP. i think she's slightly miscast.
    I personally think she's miscast too, but why do you think she's embarrassed to be MP? She's been used in a lot of the advertising and marketing and seems to be quite ok with it. Do you see something in the performance?

    She seems a bit uncomfortable with it. May be she's not a very good actress. I'm not sure. She just seems awkward. I think it's cos she went to Cambridge - they tend to be a bit stiff.
    I didn't know that about her. My dad went to Cambridge, and he is a bit stiff imho, so you may have a point.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It's definitley something I've noticed about Cambridge grads.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's just occurred to me that Harris seems slightly embarrassed to be MP. i think she's slightly miscast.
    I personally think she's miscast too, but why do you think she's embarrassed to be MP? She's been used in a lot of the advertising and marketing and seems to be quite ok with it. Do you see something in the performance?

    She seems a bit uncomfortable with it. May be she's not a very good actress. I'm not sure. She just seems awkward. I think it's cos she went to Cambridge - they tend to be a bit stiff.
    I don´t no nobody who went to Cambridge, but if my memeory serves me right, Harris acted completely different and not at all stiff in 28 Days or Miami Vice.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's just occurred to me that Harris seems slightly embarrassed to be MP. i think she's slightly miscast.
    I personally think she's miscast too, but why do you think she's embarrassed to be MP? She's been used in a lot of the advertising and marketing and seems to be quite ok with it. Do you see something in the performance?

    She seems a bit uncomfortable with it. May be she's not a very good actress. I'm not sure. She just seems awkward. I think it's cos she went to Cambridge - they tend to be a bit stiff.
    I didn't know that about her. My dad went to Cambridge, and he is a bit stiff imho, so you may have a point.

    I feel a slight stiffness coming on...
  • Posts: 486
    Getafix wrote: »
    She seems a bit uncomfortable with it. May be she's not a very good actress. I'm not sure. She just seems awkward. I think it's cos she went to Cambridge - they tend to be a bit stiff.

    As charming as she is I think being a not very good actress is the most likely contributor.

    She first came to my attention in the 90s revival of kids sci-fi show 'The Tomorrow People' and she was a little awkward in that. Or maybe it's just a personal affectation.
  • Yes, but wouldn't mind them, along with M, being less of a focus in the next one.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Yes agreed.
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    If I was 009 I'd raise a grievance that Bond always gets the Aston while I'm stuck with a Prius from Hertz. I guess maybe it feeds into the theory someone put about on another thread that Q is gay (simply because Wishaw is) - hes got a crush on Bond so goes out of his way to help him.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Yes they should have returned. Totally disagree with OP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    No. Quite frankly, I'm sick of them already. Ditch them for the next one please (or at least the actors who play them).
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 4,325
    Post deleted
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Again, its this relying on brand recognition thing. Moneypenny and Q have a presence in pop culture, and therefore the producers have to be there. I'm not someone who wants Moneypenny and Q gone completely, but they shouldn't be there unless it feels natural. Sometimes the script will permit it, sometimes not. At the end of the day, they're only bit players. There is some wiggle room between slavish adhering to tropes and dispensing with them entirely.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    To answet the thread question, absolutely. It was the right decision and I'm pleased with the current team.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    It's been an interesting experiment with mixed results. Definitely something to learn from moving forward. I wouldn't mind a bit of recasting with some no name actors for the next Bond's era though. They need to get back the freedom to use them at their own discretion.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    pachazo wrote: »
    It's been an interesting experiment with mixed results. Definitely something to learn from moving forward. I wouldn't mind a bit of recasting with some no name actors for the next Bond's era though. They need to get back the freedom to use them at their own discretion.

    Yes, very much so.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    No. Quite frankly, I'm sick of them already. Ditch them for the next one please (or at least the actors who play them).

    Ditch the actors who play them. Both talented actors, but both enormously miss cast.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    pachazo wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind a bit of recasting with some no name actors for the next Bond's era though. They need to get back the freedom to use them at their own discretion.
    I don't buy this idea that EON are somehow obligated to use Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw because they are "name" actors. Fiennes seems like a humble guy who enjoys working, and I'm sure he'd be happy with a role similar to Dench's in GE, TND, DAD (before M became Bond's babysitter or a major player in the plot). And Harris and Whishaw just aren't that big of a deal. I seriously doubt any of these actors demand lots of screen time and I'm sure they understand that M, Moneypenny and Q are traditionally not big parts. They knew what they signed up for.

    I think the solution to Moneypenny and Q getting too much screen time is simply reducing their screen time. By all means EON should try to keep these characters fresh - but going forward, I'd prefer a "quality over quantity" approach to their scenes. If the actors aren't happy with that, they are free to walk. In the meantime, let's not link EON's questionable creative decisions with the actors. The actors don't call the shots.

    Amusingly, however, I guess Fiennes did veto M's reveal as a traitor! That's a major piece of input. I think Bond fans should be grateful to Fiennes for respecting the character and demanding a change. Say what you will about his performance, he clearly cares about the work he's doing. With Fiennes, I think that M is in very good hands. (Anyway, I think I've gone off topic.)
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Milovy wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind a bit of recasting with some no name actors for the next Bond's era though. They need to get back the freedom to use them at their own discretion.
    I don't buy this idea that EON are somehow obligated to use Fiennes, Harris or Whishaw because they are "name" actors. Fiennes seems like a humble guy who enjoys working, and I'm sure he'd be happy with a role similar to Dench's in GE, TND, DAD (before M became Bond's babysitter or a major player in the plot). And Harris and Whishaw just aren't that big of a deal. I seriously doubt any of these actors demand lots of screen time and I'm sure they understand that M, Moneypenny and Q are traditionally not big parts. They knew what they signed up for.

    I think the solution to Moneypenny and Q getting too much screen time is simply reducing their screen time. By all means EON should try to keep these characters fresh - but going forward, I'd prefer a "quality over quantity" approach to their scenes. If the actors aren't happy with that, they are free to walk. In the meantime, let's not link EON's questionable creative decisions with the actors. The actors don't call the shots.

    Amusingly, however, I guess Fiennes did veto M's reveal as Blofeld! That's a major piece of input. I think Bond fans should be grateful to Fiennes for respecting the character and demanding a change. Say what you will about his performance, he clearly cares about the work he's doing. With Fiennes, I think that M is in very good hands. (Anyway, I think I've gone off topic.)

    I don't think they demand screen time, but EON or Mendes wanted to expand their roles and these actors were chosen specifically for that purpose. So now they feel as if it's a regression (or a slight to the actors even) to return the characters back to their previous capacity.

    We are all grateful for Fiennes' refusal to portray M as the traitor, but he should have never been put in that position to begin with. It just highlights how troubled a production SP really was. Still, you've got to give credit where it's due and Fiennes did the right thing. I agree with you that he seems like a stand up guy.
  • pachazo wrote: »
    We are all grateful for Fiennes' refusal to portray M as the traitor, but he should have never been put in that position to begin with.

    Just imagine if a lesser actor had been cast as M. I sometimes think about that and shudder at the possibility of M (Mallory) actually being revealed as a traitor. I think Fiennes deserved a higher ranking in the Great MI6 Staff Game for this reason alone. If one were to assign an MVP to each Bond film (now there's an idea for a thread), Fiennes would surely receive behind-the-scenes MVP for SP.
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    i'm sorry, did i miss something? M as the traitor? What?
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 6,844
    Apparently you did miss something. In an early draft of SP, M was going to be revealed as the traitor. Fiennes read the script and refused to do the film if his M was a traitor. They changed the script.

    Mind you, following on from Skyfall, making Fiennes' M a traitor in SP would have made no sense in any way, shape or form to begin with as he was literally willing to put his life on the line to save Dench's M in just the previous film (he even had the arm-sling to prove it). The idea should never have made it to script-form, let alone be placed in the actor's hands to be read over.
Sign In or Register to comment.